For those of you who haven't been following the issue of how to get slash running on OS X, various Slashcode posters have been asking how to get it done for roughly 2 or 3 years now (essentially since the first preview of OS X was released). For the past year, a conflict between Apache::Cookie and Apache::Request on OS X has been the last obstacle to getting this done.
If anyone has put off a Mac purchase because of this, aren't you glad you waited? Now you can get a G5 to run your site on (as if you need that much power)...
I have been running Mac OS X on my TiBook running Mac OS X 10.2.x for many months now... I never had the libapreq conflict. I dunno why. Maybe I happened to use the nostrip option and I forgot about it. Oh well, now, for the record, here is a system that essentially works.:)
From previous questioning here, it seems the most important limiting factor to running slash is RAM. How much RAM can you address with 64 bits?:) And dual G5's ought to do real nicely serving a big site like Slashdot.
On the other end, I've been given the impression that even a 7600/132 (since we're talking Macs) would be satisfactory for a more typical (read: less trafficked) slash site, given 256MB or more. So you're right, you don't need that much power.
IMO, the biggest obstacle to running Slash on a Mac OS X box that isn't really beefy is the GUI. Running in console mode will be a lot easier. Even when I used to run Slash stuff on a Linux box for development, the machine ground to a halt with X11 running.
Although on this dual-G4/1.25GHz/1GB RAM, it's pretty damned fast, even with the GUI.:-)
great news (at long last) (Score:1)
If anyone has put off a Mac purchase because of this, aren't you glad you waited? Now you can get a G5 to run your site on (as if you need that much power)...
Re:great news (at long last) (Score:2)
Re:great news (at long last) (Score:1)
From previous questioning here, it seems the most important limiting factor to running slash is RAM. How much RAM can you address with 64 bits? :) And dual G5's ought to do real nicely serving a big site like Slashdot.
On the other end, I've been given the impression that even a 7600/132 (since we're talking Macs) would be satisfactory for a more typical (read: less trafficked) slash site, given 256MB or more. So you're right, you don't need that much power.
I wonder what the smallest machine that's ev
⇒ Constitutionally Correct [cpne.org] ⇐
Re:great news (at long last) (Score:2)
Actually, it was an HP Vectra, with upgraded evergreen P100 processor. The original thing in it was a 486something or other.
lottadot [lottadot.com]
Re:great news (at long last) (Score:1)
How much RAM did you pack in? As I mentioned, it's been said that that's the real concern.
⇒ Constitutionally Correct [cpne.org] ⇐
Re:great news (at long last) (Score:2)
Back then ram wasn't as cheap as it is now-a-days, so it wouldn't have had much more than that.
lottadot [lottadot.com]
Re:great news (at long last) (Score:2)
Although on this dual-G4/1.25GHz/1GB RAM, it's pretty damned fast, even with the GUI.
Re:great news (at long last) (Score:1)
Stop talking about your big phat boxes, you make me jealous. :)
⇒ Constitutionally Correct [cpne.org] ⇐